Writing on his Foreign Policy blog, Stephen Walt notes
the uptick in war hysteria directed at Iran, and, like a good realist, looks
at the US-Iranian military equation with a cold-eyed attention to facts and
figures. He lists the huge military and economic disparities in favor of the
US, bare numbers that speak truth to war propaganda, and then wonders aloud:

"The more one thinks about it, the odder our obsession with Iran appears.
It’s a pretty unlovable regime, to be sure, but given Iran’s actual capabilities,
why do U.S. leaders devote so much time and effort trying to corral support
for more economic sanctions (which aren’t going to work) or devising strategies
to ‘contain’ an Iran that shows no sign of being able to expand in any meaningful
way?"

In search of an answer to this puzzling question, Walt goes on to explore
the non-military aspects of the Middle Eastern conflict, averring that "simple
bean counts like the one presented above do not tell you everything about the
two countries, or the political challenges that Iran might pose to its neighbors."
Pointing to Iranian support for Hezbollah and influence in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Walt nevertheless urges us not to overstate the alleged Iranian "threat"
and allow ourselves to be stampeded into another unnecessary war. One couldn’t
agree more, and yet I can’t help but notice Walt failed to answer his own question:
why are our "leaders" devoting so much time and effort to
corral support for murderous sanctions (remember Iraq) and other acts of war?

The answer, of course, is contained in the pages of a book Walt co-authored,
with John Mearsheimer, that tells a good part of the story. The Israel Lobby
and US Foreign Policy is invariably described as "controversial,"
or even "extremely
controversial," but this is merely an indication of how tame our political
discourse has become in the Republic’s late senescence. In reality the book
merely demonstrates, at length and in great detail, a simple truism that everyone
already knows and long ago learned to live with: the decisive influence of
Israel’s partisans in the formulation and conduct of US foreign policy.

A huge ongoing propaganda campaign is constantly churning out pro-Israel materials
directed at a wide variety of special interest groups: the lobby’s most well-known
success story is the Christian fundamentalist faction, which believes in the
key role played by Israel as a harbinger of the second coming of Christ. The
lobby has parlayed this into a powerful domestic constituency fanaticallydevoted to Israel’s cause – and not just the cause of the current Israeli government,
but of the most extremist and expansionist elements in the Israeli polity.

A less well-known triumph of niche marketing is the Israeli propaganda effort
directed at the gay community. The Israeli government has sponsored ads appearing
in San Francisco’s bus shelters extolling the IDF because it doesn’t discriminate
against gays, and a recent tour of Israel’s gay hot spots promises
a visit with hunky IDF soldiers. Pat Robertson and the advocates of gay
liberation – together at last!

We’re an empire now, and it’s perfectly rational for every state actor in
the world who wants something from Uncle Sam to not only show up at the imperial
court in Washington and seek the favor of the most powerful ruler in world
history, but also to make an appeal to his subjects. Since Congress long agoceded its war-making and oversight powers to the executive, an American president,
once in office, can wreak considerable havoc in the conduct of our foreign
affairs

Yet even Caesar operates under certain constraints: i.e. the vicissitudes
of domestic politics, which require him to hand out favors to his supporters
in order to remain in power beyond the next election. It is safe to say, with
certain rare exceptions, that every political leader acts purely out of his
own self-interest: that is, with an eye to either achieving political office
or else retaining that office once elected. This is merely a restatement of
a simple axiom: every ruling class acts to preserve its rule.

The American elite, however, is particularly ruthless, these days, in its
pursuit of naked self-interest: the old British idea of politics as a "public
service," a selfless act of noblesse oblige, went out with the first Bush
administration, and had been near extinct long before then. Today, it is a
veritablefree-for-all, with various interest groups lunging at the loot, and
battling over it on the public stage, so that American politics often looks
like an episode of the Jerry Springer Show.

This vulgarity has carried over into the realm of foreign affairs, coinciding
with the rising influence of the neoconservatives. The neocons, whose unabashed
appetite for foreign conquests, and open boasts that they were establishing
an "American empire," really defined the style and spirit of the
American "hegemon," whose supremacy they proclaim [.pdf] must be the underlying
objective of American foreign policy. The present administration, for all its
talk of "change," has continued to operate within the same paradigm
that assumes unchallenged American supremacy the world over.

With such an extremist philosophy, one would think the neocons would’ve had
a hard time pushing though their hard-line policies, especially given the much-lamented
"isolationism" of the American people, and yet their success hinged
on the interests of various interest groups that, together, hardly constitute
a majority of the American people, but certainly dominate the "higher
circles" in government, in the business world, and in the media. Using
this leverage, the War Party’s coalition of ideological, business, and foreign
interests managed to whip up a storm of war hysteria against Iraq very similar to what is being whipped up today against Iran.

With one big difference: there is very little pretense being made as to whose
interests a war against Iran is designed to serve, unlike in the previous instance.
Here the power of the Israel lobby is rearing up to its full height, with Israeli
government officials openly calling on the nations of the world – i.e. the
United States – to commit acts of war against Iran: impose sanctions, set up
a blockade, and effect "regime change" by whatever means. And Israel’s
amen corner in the US is echoing this call, with the drumbeat for war getting
louder by the month. Only a war-weary public, presently embroiled in bitter
domestic internecine disputes, stands in the way of their success.

Our leaders are afraid of the public reaction if it should ever come to war,
and so the President and his administration are caught in a vise, pressed by
fear of the Lobby on one side, and fear of their own people on the other. On
the one hand, a war at the height of an economic depression might be just the
trick for turning things around politically. On the other hand, the backlash
could be terrible, and politically fatal, like prematurely awakening a wild
animal from hibernation – there’s always the danger it will turn on you. Under
these circumstances, will they dare to go ahead with it?

In earnestly looking for some external reason for the drive to war – some
geopolitical dynamic that would explain the inordinate attention paid to a
weak adversary whose ability to hurt us is severely constrained – it’s no wonder
Professor Walt came up empty-handed. No such dynamic exists: what does exist,
however, is American politics, the course of which determines the policies
we pursue overseas. There is no disinterested determination of where our interests,
as a nation, lie, or what course would best protect the citizens of this country
from attack: what is being protected, here, is not the physical and economic
safety of the American people, but the particular interests of certain politicians
and their supporters.

Will we go to war with Iran? No one knows. But if it serves the interests
of a politically beleaguered, increasingly unpopular President or party to
divert public attention away from domestic problems by launching a campaign
of fear – The Iranians are coming! The Iranians are coming! – and creating
a "crisis," well then, war is hardly inconceivable. Indeed, it seems
more likely by the day.

201202979139 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Fjustin%2F2010%2F04%2F20%2Fthe-making-of-american-foreign-policy%2FThe+Making+of+American+Foreign+Policy2010-04-21+06%3A00%3A13Justin+Raimondohttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2F%3Fp%3D2012029791 to “The Making of American Foreign Policy”

Justin: It looks bad. Who is going to stop this runup to war? The only sane political leaders are people like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. We need a new America First Commitee and we need it now. They own the Congress, the media, and the President. I try to talk sense to people but they think Iran is about to destroy the world. I think the only thing stopping them is fear of a total economic collapse.

Excellent analysis, Justin. One thing: your claim (and one that's routinely cited) about the Israel lobby being the "second most powerful lobby in Washington" is false.

The Israel lobby is unquestionably the #1, most powerful lobby in Washington.

The famous Fortune magazine article that's trotted out to (safely) identify Israel's 'influence' in Washington only measured a portion of what constitutes the colossal and immeasurable Israel-Jewish lobby in America. Fortune didn't discuss Hollywood. Fortune didn't discuss the think thanks. Fortune breezed over the crypto-Israeli journalists, the publishers, the lawyers (the ACLU, the SPLC) and other covert 'Jewish-sensitive' people and institutions in high places. Even the countless Jewish political activists (and politicians) who fly under the radar by underplaying their Jewishness (Boxer, Feinstein, Feingold, Specter, Wyden, Franken, etc etc) and who act on behalf of Israel each and every day largely escaped notice by Fortune.

There is simply no lobby that COMES EVEN CLOSE to this unique, foreign-based octopus of influence and control.

In our 'special relationship' with the Zionist entity, America is little more than a prison bride. When Israel barks 'kill', we roll over.

Surely there is a problem, unstated, of Imperial overreach? The US military hierarchy certainly understand this, and see no reason to further jeopardize already fragile footholds in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan by attacking Iran. This is where US and Israeli interests critically diverge.

Great piece as usual – but only a partial answer. The other part is is maintenance of US economic and therefore military dominance on the planet. The only real threat to this is China and by virtue of its economic rise, China will put the US in a position where it can no longer dominate. The rulers of our Empire will not tolerate this if they can avoid it – and they might actually be helpless and desperate right now.
But "getting" Iran, an economic partner of China, is now a shared goal of Israel and the US. It has nothing to do with nukes. Iran is just the next on the list as the US desperately tries to stop China (From what by the way? China like Iran has not shown the slightest hint of expansionism. And do not cry Tibet. Before Mao's revolution, not a single country in the world extended diplomatic recognition to Tibet. Chang Kai Shek made clear it was part of China, and all the world agreed until the CIA started to use Tibet as a lever to split up China beginning in the 1950s and continuing to this very day.)
So the interests of Empire and Israel coincide in the case of Iraq, making it a very dangerous situation indeed.
But if Empire touches Iran, it is anyone's guess where the conflagration will lead.
jw

I never will forget Mad Dog Albright–whose father was the mentor of Condolezza Rice–appearing on one of those political interview shows years ago (don't know which one, 'cause I only saw it by chance and generally scorn them)…but, she said what we should all know and take to heart when we make the error of assuming that voting for the Democratic or Republican wing of the Oligarchical Party makes a difference….she said that 'one of the strengths of American foreign policy was that it does not change with the party in power.'

I wonder why they did not resort to another big false flag in the US yet. They work so smoothly!
And another big false flag plus war with lots of fireworks on CNN could distract ppl from the ongoing economic meltdown. Any clue?

An article about the making of US foreign policy without a mention of the influence which capitalist thirst for profits has on it? Pathetic. I'm not fan of the 'Israeli lobby' but lets not scapegoat them as if they 'control' the US capitalist military empire. Wall Street profits drives US foreign policy – not the Israeli lobby.

Very true. Iran has lots of oil. And having an Islamic regime – one not influenced by money(I wouldn't think; perhaps one should say not as heavily influenced by money?)- isn't going to be particularly keen on dealing with the United States regarding it's oil reserves….

Great comments about Tibet being annexed prior to the Communists. The same applies to Manchuria, Taiwan wgucg Chang also claimed to be Chinese as well when they were not legitimatly part of China. This set the precedent because no country disputed Chang, Mao just kept what Chang had done.

Iran is a target now because it is leaving the fold (no kow towing, no US dollar dealing). China would, but at this point it is too large and powerful for the US to be able to do something about it. It also happens that Israel wants to make a point here since they want to tell the region "Look what happens if you want to go your own way". Thus, an independent Iran is a threat to both the Empire and its master.

Great observation about Sadaam going off the $ standard for oil in addition to the amount being pumped which Sadaam wanted to increase. These are the primary reasons for the invasion. Since the $ is the medium of exchange for oil transactions this props up the value of the $ which prevents the devaluation of the $ and bankruptcy. The Pentagon spending is bankrupting the USG and the precedent being the cost of the Great Wall of China which took 25 years and drove the country into bankruptcy, the collapse of society and invasion by the Mongols. The USG with its Great Electronic Wall of Space and at least 1,000 outposts worldwide will/is bankrupting the USG..The USG strategy to prevent bankruptcy by using oil to prop up the $. means the USG IS going bankrupt to prevent the USG from going bankrupt. Insane.

An alternate point of view would be the US military is completely in charge of US foreign policy, Hilly gets to choose the architect for the embassy in London. I really doubt the US military wants, or needs a war with Iran. It virtually guarantees the destruction of whatever the US has in Iraq. Most likely NATO forces in Afghanistan would also be destroyed. Pakistan might also cease to exist. Would NATO survive?

The US military seems to be on good terms with the Iranians, notice there are no border incidents like with North Korea.

isn't thair somethyng in the "Constitution about being loyal to enties ,foreign,alein or queer aka capitAlism,zionism,consumer ized,&superficial to & at the core, "the dip sh!t!st, thair (they/them) diety'zs,a cheap imitation for a revulsion imposed actually masquaraiding as an entity so very important and seeking (a spine, or a totem that walks and talks & make it all up as events break,evolve,hit the floor) the door in or out ,whatever the anti oppositional case turns-evolves"aka conspires to be,thats intelligeint design for ya or to the pigs of war,all 5 seasons of harvest & FRAUD!,etc,etc,the cause and effect electronically farmed,thats our supreme staging area at the dust made wholly,via twin towers and armagedon proving grounds,Judas clothes,why thair nude,,,ps it's asick poem,,,oo,sorry,doalive out

In regard to the middle east Israel is indeed a big influence on US policy. This influence comes from their ability to make it very difficult on politicians who are already in office, or those aspiring to reach that level, if they don't cow tow to Israel's demands. The fact the the US capitalist military empire and Israel's interests converge with respect to Iran is a double whammy that one would think almost guarantees there will be war with Iran when all is said and done.

It's not about loving Israel or hating Obama, it's about Rush loving Rush.

Like the politicians, corporations, war profiteers, and Israel supporters, Rush places his own interests ahead of the interests of the country. Even when the country is damaged or endangered by his actions, Rush doesn't care(he blames it on Obama and the liberals), so long as he prospers. It's a sign of the times really. As the US declines, the social order becomes cannibalistic(metaphorically, of course). When there's not enough to go around, it's "eat your neighbor"(metaphorically, of course), every man for himself, and try to survive till some kind of new equilibrium is reached.

The answer – well not really an answer – is the same for every regime in the world, though that of Washington's is obviously the most dangerous one in the world at present.

Anyhow the general point is that there is so much trouble and potential strife at 'home', that people (including the leaders/politicians) need an "outside threat" to distract them and give an actually false sense of 'unity' to themselves as a so-called 'nation' … hence "nationalism" at it's starkest in such instances as Nazi Germany and Israel now.

Paranoia rules OK!! "Enemies" will shape-shift at the drop of a hat, e.g. Russia, Libya, Cuba, Iraq, Iran and anything else that can be thrown in the mix.

All window dressing for widespread psycho-pathology affecting nearly everyone, to some extent or other.

"Our leaders…. caught in a vise, pressed by fear of the Lobby on one side, and fear of their own people on the other". Excellent stuff, however politicians & others are more afraid of the Lobby (afraid for their jobs)…….and they are more afraid of media smears that target them & give excuse for their removal….so 99% of politicians on both sides play the “fear card” & vote "pro-war" ……they are afraid to “rock the boat”.
It’s pretty certain very few war profiteers control public opinion (and misinformation propaganda) via indirect equity/funding of mass media moguls …..they are obviously pro-Israel too…..things can not change as long as enough of the "public" can be hoodwinked by media & politicians can pay lawyers to do more phony inquiries which "muddy the waters" and "hoodwink with complexity" & give them an out…
Fact is, crooked mainstream media ownership & reporting is the key to the strife….and it’s 24/7/365…when people desert it, as more & more are doing, I think their game is up & their days are numbered.

Another fact is if you vote left or right you get war regardless of what they say they will do.
Wasn't Obama risen to glory because of this sort of "end the wars" and anti-war rhetoric.
Perhaps people should form groups in their electorate & demand some written commitments from all people standing for election. If they won't give these commitments expose them for what they are. If they renege tell everybody in the electorate about this.

That is because the two parties are the same. The Republicrats. Both parties are owned by the same special interest groups. i would not call it a "strength", but merely a symbol of a rotten, corrupt system.

Will there be war with Iran? that's a silly question. The only alternative to war is complete surrender by Iran, and probably not then. Or a takeover in Iran by US stooges. THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN THINK THAT THIS RELENTLESS BUILDUP OF WAR PROPAGANDA IS JUST BRAVADO.

Before 'commitments' I would simply vet all candidates with a written test on the Constitution and post the results publicly. If they pass and get elected, and do not honor their oath of office, it's automatic recall. Problem solved.

Governments are beginning to face the consequences of aiding and abetting the oligarchy. They have every reason, along with the oligarchs that control them, to try to divert the anger of the populace that threatens their necks. Time to turn over the chess board.

If there is an anti-war clique in the Obama admin., the power of the Israel lobby is such that the antiwar side is loath to make its case in public. The neocon side and its media is busily portraying Iran to the public as (what else?) the next Hitler, while the most the antiwar side can muster is "all options are open". The public might be less gungho for war if the gory details of what that entailed was put before it. But do that and you'll get accused of liking the next Hitler. Raimondo says that nobody knows if war with Iran is coming – that itself might be an overly optomistic appraisal.

If Dr. Mersheimer were serious about criticizing the pro-Israel lobby, he would have taken on the Sibel Edmonds case.

He would also be looking into how the pro-Israel lobby has shamelessly and, most of all – hypocritically – sided with Turkey in denying the Armenian genocide committed by Turkey. Visit the following website for the facts that Antiwar won't tell youhttp://www.NoPlaceForDenial.com

I suspect that Dr. Mersheimer is simply prejudiced against certain ethnic groups. Look into his background. The guy is 100% of the US foreign policy establishment. Notice that Antiwar.com does not tell you that.

Antiwar.com has ignored the hypocrisy of the pro-Israel lobby regarding Armenian issues. What is the ethnic background of the top people in Antiwar? Ask yourself that.

None of this "waiting for the next election cycle" bull crap but yank them out immediately for failing to do what they were sent there to do. As it stands now they flip you the middle finger and laugh all the way until the end of term. I'd deep six any notions of being "untouchable".

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].